Free Education in Universities Here you need to craft at least 3 exigency arguments, and at least one each for: Existence (Prove problem exists) Magnitude

Free Education in Universities Here you need to craft at least 3 exigency arguments, and at least one each for:

Existence (Prove problem exists)
Magnitude (Prove problem’s size)
Urgency (Prove problem’s severity)
Existence (Prove problem exists)
Magnitude (Prove problem’s size)
Urgency (Prove problem’s severity) and also another PowerPoint to help you find the types of claim, evidence and warrant. Please use them and cite the PowerPoint in the papers.

For each argument, you need to make clear:

Claim – and state type of claim
Evidence – and state type of evidence and cite at least one source properly
Warrant – and state type of warrant

///————————————————————————

Here are the details,

The topic that you will need to find 3 articles about is “education should be free for college and university. Young adult doesn’t have to pay money to go to university”

The other information is provided above. I also have attached two PowerPoint that will example how you can use the

Please let me know if anything is not clear. And also please make sure the articles you use are good academic articles. This is very important Developing an Argument

“Argumentation is the art of influencing others, through
the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or act as
we wish them to believe or act.”


Evidence connected with reasoning to lead audience to
believe and/or act on persuader’s message
Requires engage in logical, analytical decision-making strategies
An Argument

From Toulmin to basic model, argument divided into
3 parts:

Claim:


Support:


Proposition to be adopted by audience
Evidence to support proposition
Warrant:


explaining how data supports the claim
Need provide proof supporting reasoning of relationship(s)
Types of Claims

Of fact


Of policy


True or false
What should or should not be
Of value



Good/bad
Worthwhile/worthless
Important/unimportant
What’s My Claim?

The Green Bay Packers are a far better team than the Chicago
Bears.


The number of sharks living in the wild is decreasing every year.


Policy: action should be permitted
Access to clean water is a necessary to live healthy.


Value: something is a worthwhile pursuit
People should be allowed to carry concealed guns on college
campuses.


Fact: something has been happening
Eating a salad once a day is a great way to reduce your cholesterol
levels.


Value: one is better than the other
Fact: something is true
Courts should not be able to overturn the will of the majority.

Policy: action should not be allowed
Types of Evidence

Dramatic Evidence

Narratives


Testimony


Short, quicker narratives – exaggerated points
Demonstration


Recounting personal experience
Anecdotes


Storytelling, encourages vicarious experience
Dramatizes presented evidence
Rational Evidence


Appeals to logical processes of reasoning
Facts: statistics, scholarship & research results
Evidence Exercise

What type of evidence would you use to support the
following claims?

For the same work, women make less than men.



Taking vitamins every day makes you healthier.



Expert testimony (Dramatic)
Research findings (Rational)
Guns should not be allowed in classrooms.



Statistics (Rational)
Demonstration (Dramatic)
Anecdotes (Dramatic)
Statistics (Rational)
Socializing is an important part of college.


Narratives (Dramatic)
Research findings (Rational)
Claims, Evidence, Warrants

Claim must be substantive & contestable



Substantive: important enough to warrant consideration
Contestable: way to (con)test, argue against it
Evidence must be reliable & relevant


Reliable: trustworthy, can be found on own to be same
Relevant: related to claim
Claims, Evidence, Warrants

Warrants: how to validly connect evidence to claim




Structure of the argument
Oftentimes assumed, unstated
Based on personal experiences, common knowledge,
sociocultural information
But if warrant not valid, undermines persuasiveness of
argument
Types of Warrants

Cause to Effect Reasoning









X causes Y
Identify things causing certain effects
If want remove effects, then need remove cause
Cause vs correlation?
Alternate things case?
Example:
Claim: Obesity is a big problem in America these days.
Evidence: People spend too much time sitting.
Warrant: Sitting → Obesity
Logical Warrants

Causal: Cause→Effect

Example:




The Packers winning…
Makes Carrie happy…
Which makes her happy in class…
Which makes her students happy.
Types of Warrants

Reasoning from Comparison or Analogy



A and B are alike because of X
Known example’s conclusions can apply to similar topic
Something familiar used to demonstrate something unfamiliar or
complex







literal (Vietnam to Iraq War)
figurative (politics to “horse-race”)
Are they more alike than are different?
Example:
Claim: Grapes and bananas are better fruit than oranges and
lemons.
Evidence: Tartness is not a favorite flavor among people.
Warrant: Oranges and lemons = bad because of tartness
Logical Warrants


Analogical: Inferences from comparing similar
Example:



If you like oranges
Then you’ll like clementines
But probably not durian
Types of Warrants

Criteria to Application Reasoning









X is of value because of A, B, C
Establish criteria to judge object
Persuade make decision based on these criteria
Criteria of value themselves to audience?
Item have other characteristics negate those criteria?
Example:
Claim: The Honda Fit is the best car for its price on the market today.
Evidence: With high gas prices, fuel efficiency is a major selling point for
any car.
Warrant: Honda fit = good because of fuel efficiency.
Logical Warrants


Criteria: establishing necessary conditions to judge
Example: Fish tacos are a better alternative because…




Low fat
Healthy meat
Healthy fat
Vegetables
Types of Warrants

Reasoning from Example


We know X is true, Y is related to X, so Y is true
What true for general true for specific

Deductive reasoning

What true for specific true for general

Inductive reasoning
Enough examples to prove point?
Examples skewed? Ambiguous?






Example:
Claim: Smoking is bad for your health.
Evidence: Research has shown that smoking cigarettes every
day can lead to a greater chance of lung cancer.
Warrant: Lung cancer negatively related to health, so smoking
is bad
Logical Warrants


Inductive reasoning: conclusions
from specific instances
Example:


These specific flowers are colorful;
Thus, all flowers are colorful.
Logical Warrants


Deductive reasoning: Conclusions from general principle
Example:



All fish live in water.
The tuna is a fish.
Thus, the tuna lives in water.
Types of Warrants

Reasoning from Signs


X is a sign of Y
Know claim exists because signs or symptoms of it exist







Signs, symptoms add up to prove existence
Does an alternate meaning of sign exist?
Do other signs negate this one?
Example:
Claim: Global warming is a problem facing the whole world.
Evidence: Glaciers are melting in Greenland, the Himalayas, Alaska,
and the Andes.
Warrant: Melting glaciers around world sign of global warming.
Logical Warrants


Symptomatic: demonstrating presence through signs
Example: I know a tornado exists because…



Low Pressure
Train Sound
Funnel Cloud
Types of Warrants

Reasoning from Authority


When expert says true, it’s true
Based on ethos appeal






Assumed correct because reputation of source
Is source an expert? Biased? Fairly represented?
Example:
Claim: The Obama health care plan is an effective cost-saving
measure.
Evidence: The Congressional Budget Office estimates the plan
will save the government $5 billion over the coming decade.
Warrant: CBO = expert, so plan is cost-saving
Logical Warrants


Authority: if enough experts say so
Example:



1st Doctor’s Opinion
2nd Doctor’s Opinion
3rd Doctor’s Opinion
ESB ARGUMENTS
Persuasion 350
EXIGENCY
Convince audience some need/problem
requires attention
Reasons audience should care, believe
action should be taken
If argument weak, audience stops listening
How exigency framed determined by
audience’s awareness
Can impact:
 how much time spend on it
 what arguments use to support it
 what evidence need to cite to prove it
EXIGENCY
Need/problem framed by
providing evidence for…
Existence
Demonstrate the problem exists
 Where, to whom
Claim of fact
Magnitude
Urgency
http://cf.ltkcdn.net/greenliving/images/std/207971675×450-Ocean-Pollution.jpg
EXIGENCY
Need/problem framed by
providing evidence for…
Existence
Magnitude
Demonstrate the size of the
problem
 How many, how large
Claim of fact
Urgency
https://phys.org/news/2010-08-seawidespread-plastic-debris-western.html
EXIGENCY
Need/problem framed by
providing evidence for…
Existence
Magnitude
Urgency
Demonstrate the importance of
the problem
 Why important
Claim of value
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/ehp.123-A34.g008.jpg
SOLUTIONS
Need to convince audience proposed solution(s)
effectively handle exigency
Believing solution will work = response efficacy
Response efficacy achieved by:
Showing worked elsewhere
Experts agree solution will work
More desirable than undesirable consequences
Show benefits or how avoids unpleasant consequences
Requires little effort, time, and/or expense
HTTP://WWW.EVERYTHINGCONNECTS.ORG/END-PLASTICPOLLUTION.HTML
SOLUTIONS
Need to account audience’s potential
resistance to enacting solutions
Barriers (next)
Self-efficacy: belief in own ability to
follow recommended action
Make consistent with audience’s commitment
level
Make feasible to enact
Make alternative actions available
BARRIERS
Might prevent audience from
enacting the solutions
Internal
External
Perceived vs. Actual
Analyze audience to gauge
problems with enacting solutions
Need to present counterarguments
Will discuss more with theories

Purchase answer to see full
attachment